The ASR findings came to a few major conclusions. One is that on average public trust in science has not declined in this country over the last 40 years. Only two groups have had drops in there trust in science: conservatives and church-goers. Other groups have stayed fairly level in their trust in science. The other finding is that education does not correlate to trust in science. A more educated public does not mean that public trust in science will increase.
Essentially, this report is a very long way of saying, "People are stubborn." I do not understand why any of us should be surprised by any of the results of this finding. The conservative base is so far removed from science that is scary at times (the opposite is also true, however, where liberals are sometimes too married to it).
We have long known that people are stubborn. Very rarely do people have epiphanies about religion or science and change their whole way of thinking. Sure there are born-agains and people who lose faith, but there are a slim margin of the population. The decline in trust in science among conservatives is likely not due to a bunch of "science-believers" suddenly denying its veracity, but rather people switching parties or becoming independents or moderates.
So, how does this information make me become better science writers? It doesn't. It can't. My audience is now more partisan, more biased, more one-sided.. The audience of science readers is moving left and that means we do not need to worry much about alienating our conservative readership because they are already being alienated. The report tells me some people, no matter how educated they are, do not trust science. Will they even read the articles I write if they are outright rejecting the subject matter? No matter how much evidence I present I cannot reach that particular part of the audience if they never even read past the title.
Does this information make me become a better scientist? Probably not. My job as a scientist is to perform scientific experiments and increase our understanding of the natural world. Whether a minority of people wish to accept that information or not is up to them. As a scientist and student of the physical world I need to be concerned with performing experiments. It is not my role to interfere politically and socially in an attempt to make my work more appreciated or trusted.
Does this information make me a better citizen? It can or it can't. With this information I have the power to say, "Those darn conservatives/Charlie-churchers will never get science so this is all the more reason not to try to talk with them about it" or it is my opportunity to try and show them that science is something they should trust. I hope I can make the latter choice. Most people take medicine and use computers. That is science that they have put their trust in so why should other science be different. It is all done the same way. It is my job as a citizen, more than as a scientist or science writer, to talk with them and try to make them see that science is not trying to lie to them and dissuade them from their beliefs or principles. By reasoning logically with people and starting to convince them that science is not only trustworthy, but also their friend, I hope at least a small fraction of people will come to believe that that is true.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Assignment 1 Prompt 1
Science has the potential to make or break the United States and the world. It has the power to cure cancer and the power to blow up whole countries. For these reasons it is safe to assume that knowledge of the sciences is of the utmost importance in modern society. Jon D. Miller warns us in his article "What Colleges and Universities Need to Do to Advance Civic Scientific Literacy and Preserve American Democracy" that around the developed world scientific literacy is abysmally low with a mere 24% of Americans being satisfactorily literate. Scientific progress moves at an ever increasing rate and numbers like those presented by Miller should tell us that we are all doomed. But then again, maybe not.
Scientific literacy is important to me because I am intensely curious about science, but whether or not it is important to keep a functioning democracy is arguable. I agree that politicians need to be scientifically literate. It is definitely important that they understand the science behind the issues because there are several important debates being argued right now that are highly technical in nature. We depend on our elected officials to educate themselves (or have there interns do it, at least) and look at the data to make an informed decision.
Here is where you say, "But politicians don't always do that. They refute solid scientific evidence frequently and end up basing there decisions on moral, religious, or partisan affiliations." An excellent point, which in fact supports the idea that scientific literacy is hardly important at all. There are many politicians that seem to be able to look at a mountain of data saying global warming is real and then throw it in a landfill somewhere while they go off and start a tire fire at an endangered species hunting party. So, who cares about what the science says? I do! ... but my elected official doesn't and neither do most Americans according to the most recent Gallup poll which came out at the beginning of the month. It is a poll that asks which issues are most important to them. A mere 1% said the environment, which is probably one of the greatest existential threats facing our species besides nuclear proliferation. Another 4% said healthcare, while nobody said energy or lack of resources or overpopulation. These issues are scientifically driven and few people seem worried.
The issues topping the poll are things like governmental dissatisfaction, the economy in general, the national deficit, unemployment, and other such issues. And who can blame the American public for being concerned about those things? These are issues that affect us every single day. Does that make them the most important? Absolutely not, but they are the most pressing and the ones that hit the closest to home. Unless rising sea levels are carrying your house out to sea (which they may do one day) then global warming probably seems a pretty distant and unimportant issue.
So, how do we make people care about science? How do we make them understand that it could save them? Or destroy them? Simply, we cannot. Not by writing about it, anyway. The only way science will ever interest anyone is by making it personal. Talk to people going working in medical research, for instance, and you will likely find someone who knew a friend or family member affected by cancer, ALS, or Downs syndrome, which has pushed them to do their research. I love science because my father loves it and he taught me to enjoy it, too. If my parents hadn't encouraged my scientific curiosity I am sure I wouldn't be studying chemistry at all.
So the final question is: can we increase scientific literacy and save our our democracy? No, for two reasons. One, people don't care about science. It isn't at the forefront and it may not be for a long time. Two, we aren't going to magically breed an interest in science among the general public by writing articles in an often skipped over "Science" section of a dying media outlet. Scientific literacy can only be fostered within schools and homes where people can have role models who love science. Scientific literacy is important, but only to some of us, and it is certainly not important in maintaining our democracy... at least not yet.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
This is the link to the Gallup poll referenced above.
Scientific literacy is important to me because I am intensely curious about science, but whether or not it is important to keep a functioning democracy is arguable. I agree that politicians need to be scientifically literate. It is definitely important that they understand the science behind the issues because there are several important debates being argued right now that are highly technical in nature. We depend on our elected officials to educate themselves (or have there interns do it, at least) and look at the data to make an informed decision.
Here is where you say, "But politicians don't always do that. They refute solid scientific evidence frequently and end up basing there decisions on moral, religious, or partisan affiliations." An excellent point, which in fact supports the idea that scientific literacy is hardly important at all. There are many politicians that seem to be able to look at a mountain of data saying global warming is real and then throw it in a landfill somewhere while they go off and start a tire fire at an endangered species hunting party. So, who cares about what the science says? I do! ... but my elected official doesn't and neither do most Americans according to the most recent Gallup poll which came out at the beginning of the month. It is a poll that asks which issues are most important to them. A mere 1% said the environment, which is probably one of the greatest existential threats facing our species besides nuclear proliferation. Another 4% said healthcare, while nobody said energy or lack of resources or overpopulation. These issues are scientifically driven and few people seem worried.
The issues topping the poll are things like governmental dissatisfaction, the economy in general, the national deficit, unemployment, and other such issues. And who can blame the American public for being concerned about those things? These are issues that affect us every single day. Does that make them the most important? Absolutely not, but they are the most pressing and the ones that hit the closest to home. Unless rising sea levels are carrying your house out to sea (which they may do one day) then global warming probably seems a pretty distant and unimportant issue.
So, how do we make people care about science? How do we make them understand that it could save them? Or destroy them? Simply, we cannot. Not by writing about it, anyway. The only way science will ever interest anyone is by making it personal. Talk to people going working in medical research, for instance, and you will likely find someone who knew a friend or family member affected by cancer, ALS, or Downs syndrome, which has pushed them to do their research. I love science because my father loves it and he taught me to enjoy it, too. If my parents hadn't encouraged my scientific curiosity I am sure I wouldn't be studying chemistry at all.
So the final question is: can we increase scientific literacy and save our our democracy? No, for two reasons. One, people don't care about science. It isn't at the forefront and it may not be for a long time. Two, we aren't going to magically breed an interest in science among the general public by writing articles in an often skipped over "Science" section of a dying media outlet. Scientific literacy can only be fostered within schools and homes where people can have role models who love science. Scientific literacy is important, but only to some of us, and it is certainly not important in maintaining our democracy... at least not yet.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
This is the link to the Gallup poll referenced above.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)